Lack of coordination and medical disinformation in Canadian self-assessment tools for COVID-19

  1. Brieanne Olibris
  2. Amir Attaran

Reviewed by

Read the full article

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

As SARS-CoV-2 threatens to overwhelm health systems in Canada, it is imperative that provinces are able to plan and manage an effective and reduced risk response. For this response to be most effective, it must reflect an evidence-based, pan-Canadian response. We designed four different prototypical patients with a combination of common COVID-19 symptoms and opportunities for exposure who were made to self-assess using the 10 provincial COVID-19 self-assessment tools on 1 April. These tools were developed to allow individuals to self-triage, allowing health systems direct capacity to testing and care. We assessed the consistency of the self-assessment tools and of the guidance provided to the patients. While the tools generally screen in three areas, the scope of included COVID-19 associated symptoms as well as the opportunities for exposure, and therefore transmission, vary between provinces such that no two provinces screened in the same way. This was, in turn, reflected in the inconsistency in guidance found. A patient with cough who had travelled abroad or had close contact with a confirmed case within 14 days received the most consistent guidance, with remaining patients receiving guidance ranging from mandatory quarantine or self-isolation to being told they did not have COVID-19 symptoms, guidance at odds with medical evidence. Thus, there is not a single, evidence-based Canadian standard of care simply for self-assessment. Without consistency in public health guidance, Canadians cannot appropriately self-isolate to mitigate community transmission, nor can the necessary valid and reliable data be collected to inform critical epidemiological models that help guide pandemic response. If federal and provincial governments are unable to coordinate a response, Parliament must use its available jurisdiction to legislate a duty on both to follow national standards, so as to improve coordination on COVID-19 in coming months.

Article activity feed

  1. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2020.04.14.20065631: (What is this?)

    Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.

    Table 1: Rigor

    Institutional Review Board Statementnot detected.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    No key resources detected.

    Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).

    Results from LimitationRecognizer: An explicit section about the limitations of the techniques employed in this study was not found. We encourage authors to address study limitations.

    Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.

    Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.

    Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.

    Results from rtransparent:
    • Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • Thank you for including a funding statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • No protocol registration statement was detected.

    About SciScore

    SciScore is an automated tool that is designed to assist expert reviewers by finding and presenting formulaic information scattered throughout a paper in a standard, easy to digest format. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers), and for rigor criteria such as sex and investigator blinding. For details on the theoretical underpinning of rigor criteria and the tools shown here, including references cited, please follow this link.

  2. Version published to 10.1101/2020.04.14.20065631v1 on medRxiv